Zero sharp explained
In the mathematical discipline of set theory, 0# (zero sharp, also 0#) is the set of true formulae about indiscernibles and order-indiscernibles in the Gödel constructible universe. It is often encoded as a subset of the natural numbers (using Gödel numbering), or as a subset of the hereditarily finite sets, or as a real number. Its existence is unprovable in ZFC, the standard form of axiomatic set theory, but follows from a suitable large cardinal axiom. It was first introduced as a set of formulae in Silver's 1966 thesis, later published as, where it was denoted by Σ, and rediscovered by, who considered it as a subset of the natural numbers and introduced the notation O# (with a capital letter O; this later changed to the numeral '0').
Roughly speaking, if 0# exists then the universe V of sets is much larger than the universe L of constructible sets, while if it does not exist then the universe of all sets is closely approximated by the constructible sets.
Definition
Zero sharp was defined by Silver and Solovay as follows. Consider the language of set theory with extra constant symbols
,
, ... for each nonzero natural number. Then
is defined to be the set of
Gödel numbers of the true sentences about the constructible universe, with
interpreted as the uncountable cardinal
.(Here
means
in the full universe, not the constructible universe.)
There is a subtlety about this definition: by Tarski's undefinability theorem it is not, in general, possible to define the truth of a formula of set theory in the language of set theory. To solve this, Silver and Solovay assumed the existence of a suitable large cardinal, such as a Ramsey cardinal, and showed that with this extra assumption it is possible to define the truth of statements about the constructible universe. More generally, the definition of
works provided that there is an uncountable set of indiscernibles for some
, and the phrase "
exists" is used as a shorthand way of saying this.
A closed set
of
order-indiscernibles for
(where
is a limit ordinal) is a set of
Silver indiscernibles if:
is unbounded in
, and
is unbounded in an ordinal
, then the
Skolem hull of
in
is
. In other words, every
is definable in
from parameters in
.
If there is a set of Silver indiscernibles for
, then it is unique. Additionally, for any uncountable cardinal
there will be a unique set of Silver indiscernibles for
. The union of all these sets will be a proper class
of Silver indiscernibles for the structure
itself. Then,
is defined as the set of all Gödel numbers of formulae
such that
L\alpha\models\theta(\alpha1,\alpha2\ldots\alphan)
where
\alpha1<\alpha2<\ldots<\alphan<\alpha
is any strictly increasing sequence of members of
. Because they are indiscernibles, the definition does not depend on the choice of sequence.
Any
has the property that
. This allows for a definition of truth for the constructible universe:
only if
L\alpha\models\varphi[x1...xn]
for some
.
There are several minor variations of the definition of
, which make no significant difference to its properties. There are many different choices of Gödel numbering, and
depends on this choice. Instead of being considered as a subset of the natural numbers, it is also possible to encode
as a subset of formulae of a language, or as a subset of the hereditarily finite sets, or as a real number.
Statements implying existence
The condition about the existence of a Ramsey cardinal implying that
exists can be weakened. The existence of
-
Erdős cardinals implies the existence of
. This is close to being best possible, because the existence of
implies that in the constructible universe there is an
-Erdős cardinal for all countable
, so such cardinals cannot be used to prove the existence of
.
Chang's conjecture implies the existence of
.
Statements equivalent to existence
Kunen showed that
exists if and only if there exists a non-trivial elementary embedding for the
Gödel constructible universe
into itself.
Donald A. Martin and Leo Harrington have shown that the existence of
is equivalent to the determinacy of
lightface analytic games. In fact, the strategy for a universal lightface analytic game has the same
Turing degree as
.
It follows from Jensen's covering theorem that the existence of
is equivalent to
being a
regular cardinal in the constructible universe
.
Silver showed that the existence of an uncountable set of indiscernibles in the constructible universe is equivalent to the existence of
.
Consequences of existence and non-existence
The existence of
implies that every
uncountable cardinal in the set-theoretic universe
is an indiscernible in
and satisfies all
large cardinal axioms that are realized in
(such as being
totally ineffable). It follows that the existence of
contradicts the
axiom of constructibility:
.
If
exists, then it is an example of a non-constructible
set of natural numbers. This is in some sense the simplest possibility for a non-constructible set, since all
and
sets of natural numbers are constructible.
On the other hand, if
does not exist, then the constructible universe
is the core model—that is, the canonical
inner model that approximates the large cardinal structure of the universe considered. In that case,
Jensen's covering lemma holds:
For every uncountable set
of ordinals there is a constructible
such that
and
has the same
cardinality as
.
This deep result is due to Ronald Jensen. Using forcing it is easy to see that the condition that
is uncountable cannot be removed. For example, consider
Namba forcing, that preserves
and collapses
to an ordinal of
cofinality
. Let
be an
-sequence
cofinal on
and
generic over
. Then no set in
of
-size smaller than
(which is uncountable in
, since
is preserved) can cover
, since
is a
regular cardinal.
If
does not exist, it also follows that the
singular cardinals hypothesis holds.
[1] p. 20Other sharps
If
is any set, then
is defined analogously to
except that one uses
instead of
, also with a predicate symbol for
. See the section on relative constructibility in
constructible universe.
See also
- 0†, a set similar to 0# where the constructible universe is replaced by a larger inner model with a measurable cardinal.
References
- Book: Drake, F. R.. Set Theory: An Introduction to Large Cardinals (Studies in Logic and the Foundations of Mathematics; V. 76). Elsevier Science Ltd. 1974. 0-444-10535-2.
- Harrington . Leo . Leo Harrington. Analytic determinacy and 0 # . Journal of Symbolic Logic . 43 . 4 . 1978 . 0022-4812 . 10.2307/2273508 . 518675 . 685–693.
- Book: Jech . Thomas . Thomas Jech . Set Theory . Third Millennium . . Berlin, New York . Springer Monographs in Mathematics . 978-3-540-44085-7 . 2003 . 1007.03002 .
- Book: Kanamori, Akihiro. 2003. Springer. Akihiro Kanamori. The Higher Infinite : Large Cardinals in Set Theory from Their Beginnings. The Higher Infinite. 2nd. 3-540-00384-3.
- Martin . Donald A. . Measurable cardinals and analytic games . Fundamenta Mathematicae . 66 . 3 . 1970 . 0258637 . 0016-2736 . 10.4064/fm-66-3-287-291 . free . 287–291.
- Silver . Jack H. . Some applications of model theory in set theory . Annals of Mathematical Logic . 3 . 1 . 1971 . 0409188 . 10.1016/0003-4843(71)90010-6 . free . 45–110.
- Solovay . Robert M. . A nonconstructible Δ set of integers . Transactions of the American Mathematical Society . 127 . 1 . 1967 . 10.2307/1994631 . 0211873 . 0002-9947 . 50–75 .
Notes and References
- P. Holy, "Absoluteness Results in Set Theory" (2017). Accessed 24 July 2024.